Fishing River Final Report - DNR · River relative to sections upstream that are isolated from tributaries that serve as receiving systems for permitted point-source facilities; 2)

Biological Assessment Report

Fishing River WatershedClay & Ray Counties

January 27, 2004

Prepared for:

Missouri Department of Natural ResourcesWater Protection and Soil Conservation Division

Water Protection Program

Prepared by:

Missouri Department of Natural ResourcesAir and Land Protection DivisionEnvironmental Services ProgramWater Quality Monitoring Section

Table of ContentsSection Page

1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................... 12.0 Study Area ....................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Fishing River........................................................................................ 12.2 Fishing River Major Tributaries .......................................................... 3

3.0 Site Descriptions .............................................................................................. 44.0 Methods ........................................................................................................... 6

4.1 Macroinvertebrate Collection and Analyses........................................ 64.2 Physiochemical Data Collection and Analysis .................................... 64.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) ..................................... 7

5.0 Data Results ..................................................................................................... 75.1 Physiochemical Data............................................................................ 75.2 Habitat Assessment............................................................................ 105.3 Biological Assessment ....................................................................... 10

5.3.1 Fishing River Mainstem......................................................... 105.3.2 Fishing River Tributaries ....................................................... 115.3.3 Comparisons of Fishing River and its Tributaries

to Plains/Missouri Tributaries between the Blueand Lamine Rivers EDU Biological Criteria ......................... 11

5.3.4 Macroinvertebrate Percent and CommunityComposition........................................................................... 11

6.0 Discussion...................................................................................................... 177.0 Summary ........................................................................................................ 198.0 Literature Cited .............................................................................................. 20

Tables

Table 1 Percent Land Cover.............................................................................. 2Table 2 Physical Characteristics of the Stations ............................................... 7Table 3 In situ Water Quality Measurements at all Stations............................. 8Table 4 Nutrient Concentrations at all Stations ................................................ 9Table 5 Reference Streams and Fishing River Watershed

Habitat Assessment Scores ................................................................ 10Table 6 Biological Criteria for Warm Water Reference Streams

in the Plains/Missouri Tributaries between the Blue andLamine Rivers EDU, Spring Season.................................................. 11

Table 7 Fishing River Metric Values and Scores, Spring 2003,Using Plains/Missouri Tributaries between the Blue andLamine Rivers EDU Biocriteria......................................................... 13

Table 8 Fishing River Tributaries’ Metric Values and Scores, Spring 2003,Using Plains/Missouri Tributaries between the Blue andLamine Rivers EDU Biocriteria......................................................... 13

Table 9 Spring 2003 Fishing River Watershed MacroinvertebrateComposition....................................................................................... 14

Table 10 Plains/Osage EDU and Plains/Missouri Tributaries between theBlue and Lamine Rivers EDU Biocriteria Reference StreamMacroinvertebrate Composition, Spring Season ............................... 16

Figures

Figure 1 Fishing River Taxa Richness and EPT Taxa ..................................... 12

Attachments

Appendix A Proposed Bioassessment Study PlanAppendix B Fishing River Watershed Map

Fishing River Watershed Sample Station MapAppendix C Fishing River Watershed Macroinvertebrate Taxa Lists

Biological Assessment ReportFishing RiverJanuary 27, 2004Page 1 of 21

1.0 Introduction

On approval from the Water Protection Program (WPP), the Environmental Services Program’s(ESP) Water Quality Monitoring Section (WQMS) conducted a biological assessment of theFishing River watershed, which flows through rural and urban portions of Clinton, Clay, and Raycounties, Missouri. This assessment was designed to be part of a joint study conducted by theWQMS and the Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) for Region 7 of the United StatesEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA). The objectives of this project were to: 1) determinewhether there is greater aquatic life impairment in the most downstream portions of FishingRiver relative to sections upstream that are isolated from tributaries that serve as receivingsystems for permitted point-source facilities; 2) rank macroinvertebrate community metric scoresfrom each of the major tributaries and compare the rankings to the level of human disturbance ineach Fishing River major subwatershed; 3) establish a baseline to document the condition of theaquatic fauna as it currently exists as point of comparison for future studies; and 4) supplementfish community information gathered by MDC personnel in this watershed.

Macroinvertebrate and water quality sampling was conducted from March 25 through April 3,2003 to provide data to the WPP for use in evaluating the Fishing River watershed. DaveMichaelson and Cecilia Campbell of the Environmental Services Program, Air and LandProtection Division conducted the sampling. In addition, MDC biologists Todd Gemeinhardt,Mark Griddine, and Jason Bennett assisted in sampling and provided landowner contacts at allsample sites.

On February 11, 2003 a study plan was submitted to the WPCP (Appendix A). A total of threenull hypotheses were stated in this plan:

1) Macroinvertebrate assemblages will not differ among longitudinally separate reaches ofFishing River, separated relative to tributary influence.

2) Measures of habitat quality will not differ among longitudinally separate reaches of FishingRiver.

3) The rankings of biological metrics and levels of human disturbance will not differ among theFishing River sub-watersheds.

2.0 Study Area

2.1 Fishing River

The mainstem of Fishing River originates in western Clay County, north of Liberty, and flows inan overall southeasterly direction to its confluence with the Missouri River near Orrick. Overall,the Fishing River watershed is mostly rural, dominated by pasture, cropland, and forested areas.


See Table 1 for a comparison of land use for Fishing River, each of its tributaries, and three sitesfrom western Missouri reference streams. Although much of the watershed remains rural, ClayCounty is experiencing continuing growth associated with urban sprawl emanating from KansasCity.

Table 1Percent Land Cover

Urban Crops Grassland Forest Swamp/Marsh

PMBL EDU* 2.2 41.1 38.2 16.3 0.2Fishing River** 0.7 25.2 57.5 15.5 0.08Clear Creek 0.7 22.3 61.2 15.7 0.007Upper Clear Creek*** 0.3 25.1 56.7 17.6 0.011Muddy Fork 0.04 19.5 62.7 16.7 0.005Carroll Creek 0.0 18.4 63.1 18.1 0.008Williams Creek 1.3 15.9 61.5 20.0 0.0EF Fishing River 1.6 16.9 52.9 27.4 0.005Holmes Creek 0.1 13.3 79.9 6.2 0.014Little Drywood #1 0.2 16.2 62.4 20.0 0.0Little Drywood #2 0.0 19.1 60.9 18.8 0.0EF Crooked River 0.1 67.1 22.3 8.5 0.0*Plains/Missouri Tributaries between the Blue and Lamine Rivers**Includes entire watershed--i.e., Fishing River and each of its sub-watersheds***Upstream of the Muddy Fork Confluence

U.S. Census data indicate that Clay County’s population has grown 20 percent since 1990; aspopulations continue to increase in the county and in towns such as Liberty, Excelsior Springs,and Kearney, water quality and habitat decline associated with increased development may beoccurring in this watershed. The degree to which these impacts occur in the Fishing Riverwatershed is unknown and has prompted this joint study between the Missouri Department ofNatural Resources (DNR) and MDC.

The Fishing River watershed encompasses approximately 288 square miles and is fed by sixmajor tributaries: Clear Creek, Muddy Fork, Carroll Creek, Williams Creek, Holmes Creek, andEast Fork Fishing River.

Fishing River and each of its tributaries are located in the Plains/Missouri tributaries between theBlue and Lamine (PMBL) Ecological Drainage Unit (EDU). An EDU is a region in whichbiological communities and habitat conditions can be expected to be similar. Please seeAppendix B for maps of the EDU and the 11-digit Hydrologic Unit (HU), 10300101060.Fishing River sample stations 1 through 3 fall in a reach designated class “P” with beneficial usedesignations of “irrigation,” “livestock and wildlife watering,” (LWW) and “protection of warmwater aquatic life and human health—fish consumption” (AQL). Fishing River sample station 4falls in a reach of the stream designated class “C” with the same beneficial use designations


listed above, with the exception that “irrigation” is not included. Each of the remaining studysites in the Fishing River tributaries fell within reaches designated class “C” with beneficial usedesignations of LWW and AQL.

2.2 Fishing River Major Tributaries

Clear CreekClear Creek originates in south central Clinton County, southwest of Lathrop. It flows south-southeast through a watershed approximately 89 square miles in area (the largest Fishing Riversub-watershed) which is dominated by pastureland, row crops, and forest. It enters Fishing Rivernear the town of Mosby in southeastern Clay County. The Clear Creek watershed includes thesub-watersheds of Muddy Fork and Carroll Creek and lies within HU #10300101060002. ClearCreek Station 1 is within a reach designated class “P” with LWW and AQL as beneficial usedesignations. Clear Creek Stations 2 and 3 were in reaches designated class “C” also with LWWand AQL as beneficial use designations. Although Station 2 could not be sampled due to lack ofwater, Station 3, which was located approximately 5.9 miles upstream from Station 2, hadsufficient water levels to collect macroinvertebrates from all available habitat types.

Muddy ForkMuddy Fork originates in southeastern Clinton County, southeast of Lathrop. It flows south intoLake Arrowhead, which is surrounded by a subdivision. At the outfall of the reservoir, MuddyFork resumes its course and enters Clear Creek northeast of Kearney. The Muddy Forkwatershed is approximately 33 square miles in area; the dominant land uses within the watershedare pastureland, row crops, and forest. Both Muddy Fork sample stations lie within reachesdesignated class “C” with LWW and AQL listed as beneficial use designations.

Carroll CreekCarroll Creek originates in northeastern Clay County, west of Lawson and north of Watkins MillState Park. It flows in a southerly direction and enters Clear Creek southeast of Kearney. TheCarroll Creek watershed is approximately 14 square miles in area and has the distinction of beingthe only sub-watershed within the Fishing River drainage without a permitted point sourcedischarge. The dominant land uses within the watershed are pastureland, row crops, and forest.Both Carroll Creek sites are in reaches designated class “C” with LWW and AQL listed asbeneficial uses.

Williams CreekWilliams Creek originates in northeastern Clay County, southwest of Lawson and north ofWatkins Mill State Park in HU# 10300101060003. It flows in a southerly direction and entersFishing River southeast of Mosby. An upper branch of Williams Creek has been impounded tocreate Watkins Mill Lake, which is on the proposed 2002 303(d) list for fecal coliform from anunknown source. The Williams Creek watershed is approximately 22 square miles in area; thedominant land uses are pastureland, row crops, and forest, but also has a higher percentage ofurban surface area (1.3%) compared to other sub-watersheds within the Fishing River drainage.Both Williams Creek sites are in reaches designated class “C” with LWW and AQL listed asbeneficial uses.


East Fork Fishing RiverEast Fork Fishing River originates in northwestern Ray County near the town of Lawson in HU#10300101060005. It flows south into Crystal Lake, which is surrounded by a subdivision andfrequently has water quality problems in the form of low dissolved oxygen and fish kills (SteveFischer, MDC Fisheries Biologist, pers. comm.). At the outfall of the reservoir, the riverresumes a southerly course flowing through Excelsior Springs before joining Fishing Rivernortheast of Missouri City. The East Fork Fishing River watershed is approximately 31 squaremiles in area and although the dominant land uses are pastureland, row crops, and forest, thissub-watershed has the highest percentage of urban surface area (1.6%) within the Fishing Riverdrainage. Both East Fork Fishing River sites are in reaches designated class “C” with LWW andAQL listed as beneficial uses.

Holmes CreekHolmes Creek originates in east central Clay County near the town of Chandler in HU#10300101060004. It flows east toward Mosby, where it enters Fishing River. The HolmesCreek watershed is approximately 15 square miles in area and the dominant land uses arepastureland, row crops, and forest. The Holmes Creek study site is located in a reach designatedclass “C” with beneficial uses LWW and AQL.

3.0 Site Descriptions

With the exception of Fishing River Station 1 and East Fork Fishing River 2, which were in RayCounty, all Fishing River watershed sample stations were located in Clay County. The averagewidth and discharge measurements during the survey period are given for each sampling stationin Table 2 in the Data Results section.

Fishing River #1 (SW ¼ sec. 4, T. 51 N., R. 29 W.) was located downstream of West 88th Street.Geographic coordinates at the upstream terminus of this location were Lat. 39.25061207°, Long.-94.17009842°.

Fishing River #2 (NE ¼ sec. 21, T. 52 N., R. 30 W.) was located downstream of State Road H.Geographic coordinates at the upstream terminus of this location were Lat. 39.30617739°, Long.-94.27441919°.

Fishing River #3 (SW ¼ sec. 12, T. 52 N., R. 31 W.) was located downstream of Jesse JamesFarm Road. Geographic coordinates at the upstream terminus of this location were Lat.39.33185203°, Long. -94.33696299°.

Fishing River #4 (SW ¼ sec. 8, T. 52 N., R. 31 W.) was located downstream of Plattsburg Road.Geographic coordinates at the upstream terminus of this location were Lat. 39.32885412°, Long.-94.41499176°.

East Fork Fishing River #1 (SW ¼ sec. 23, T. 52 N., R. 30 W.) was located downstream of NE112th Street. Geographic coordinates at the upstream terminus of this location were Lat.39.29452935°, Long. -94.24948821°.


East Fork Fishing River #2 (SW ¼ sec. 6, T. 52 N., R. 29 W.) was located upstream of Highway10. Geographic coordinates at the downstream terminus of this location were Lat.39.34247615°, Long. -94.20968515°.

Williams Creek #1 (NW ¼ SW ¼ sec. 16, T. 52 N., R.. 30 W.) was located downstream of NE124th Street. Geographic coordinates at the upstream terminus of this location were Lat.39.31723775°, Long. -94.28276558°.

Williams Creek #2 (NW ¼ SW ¼ sec. 33, T. 53 N., R. 30 W.) was located downstream ofSchoolfield Road. Geographic coordinates at the upstream terminus of this location were Lat.39.35771239°, Long -94.28336947°.

Carroll Creek #1 (SW ¼ sec. 30, T. 53 N., R. 30 W.) was located downstream of Highway 92.Geographic coordinates at the upstream terminus of this location were Lat. 39.36817928°, Long.-94.31660178°.

Carroll Creek #2 (NE ¼ sec. 19, T. 53 N., R. 30 W.) was located upstream of NE 164th Street.Geographic coordinates at the downstream terminus of this location were Lat. 39.38979798°,Long. -94.31300554°.

Muddy Fork #1 (SE ¼ sec. 23. T. 53 N., R. 31 W.) was located upstream of NE 164th Street.Geographic coordinates at the downstream terminus of this location were Lat. 39.38616166°,Long. -94.34869840°.

Muddy Fork #2 (NE ¼ sec. 2, T. 53 N., R 31 W.) was located downstream of NE 190th Street.Geographic coordinates at the upstream terminus were Lat. 39.43689979°, Long. -94.34815760°.

Clear Creek #1 (NW ¼ sec. 7, T. 52 N., R. 30 W.) was located downstream of NE 134th Street.Geographic coordinates at the upstream terminus were Lat. 39.33368557°, Long. -94.31569143°.

Clear Creek #3 (NE ¼ sec. 5, T. 53 N., R. 31 W.) was located downstream of NE 188th Street.Geographic coordinates at the upstream terminus were Lat 39.43426142°, Long. -94.39991239°.

Holmes Creek #1 (SE ¼ sec. 18, T. 52 N., R. 30 W.) was located downstream of NE 122nd

Street. Geographic coordinates at the upstream terminus were Lat. 39.31373712°, Long. -94.31314065°.


4.0 Methods

4.1 Macroinvertebrate Collection and Analyses

A standardized sample collection procedure was followed as described in the Semi-quantitativeMacroinvertebrate Stream Bioassessment Project Procedure (SMSBPP) (MDNR 2003b). Threestandard habitats—depositional substrate in non-flowing water, rootmat at the stream edge, andlarge woody debris—were sampled at all locations. Due to a paucity of rootmat habitat atFishing River Station 4, only a partial sample was collected for analysis at this site.

A standardized sample analysis procedure was followed as described in the SMSBPP. Thefollowing four metrics were used: 1) Taxa Richness (TR); 2) total number of taxa in the ordersEphemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPTT); 3) biotic index (BI); and ShannonDiversity Index (SDI). These metrics are scored and combined to form the Stream ConditionIndex (SCI). Stream Condition Indices between 20-16 qualify as biologically supporting,between 14-10 are partially supporting, and 8-4 are considered nonsupporting of aquatic life.The multi-habitat macroinvertebrate data are presented in Appendix C as laboratory benchsheets.

Additionally, macroinvertebrate data were analyzed in two specific ways. First, in Fishing Riverand for tributaries in which more than one station occurs, comparisons were made among up-and downstream reaches. This comparison addresses influences that may result from influxesfrom such sources as stormwater, wastewater, and tributaries. Longitudinal patterns for FishingRiver are illustrated using XY line graphs with stream location (station number) on the X-axisand biological characteristics on the Y-axis. Data also are summarized and presented in tabularformat comparing means of the four standard metrics and other parameters at each of the stationson Fishing River and each of the tributaries.

The standard four macroinvertebrate community metrics were calculated for each of the FishingRiver major tributaries and compared to one another. Land use information, obtained usingGeographic Informational System (GIS), also is compared among the major tributaries’watersheds to observe any potential relation between metric score and land use.

4.2 Physiochemical Data Collection and Analysis

During each survey period, in situ water quality measurements were collected at all stations.Field measurements included temperature (°C), dissolved oxygen (mg/L), conductivity (µS/cm),and pH. Additionally, water samples were collected and analyzed by ESP’s Chemical AnalysisSection for turbidity (NTU), chloride, total phosphorus, ammonia-N, nitrate/nitrite-N, and totalKjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). Procedures outlined in Field Sheet and Chain of Custody Record(MDNR 2001) and Required/Recommended Containers, Volumes, Preservatives, HoldingTimes, and Special Sampling Considerations (MDNR 2003d) were followed when collectingwater quality samples.


Stream velocity was measured at each station during the survey period using a Marsh-McBirneyFlo-Mate™ Model 2000. Discharge was calculated per the methods in the Standard OperatingProcedure MDNR-FSS-113, Flow Measurement in Open Channels (MDNR 2003a).

Stream habitat characters for each sampling station were measured during the spring 2003 surveyperiod using a standardized assessment analysis procedure as described for glide/pool habitat inthe Stream Habitat Assessment Project Procedure (MDNR 2003c).

Physiochemical data were summarized and presented in tabular form for comparison amongstations on Fishing River and its major tributaries.

4.3 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)

QA/QC procedures were followed as described in the SMSBPP and in accordance with theFiscal Year 2004 Quality Assurance Project Plan for “Biological Assessment.”

5.0 Data Results

5.1 Physiochemical Data

Physical characteristics of the sample stations on Fishing River and its major tributaries arepresented in Table 2. Average stream widths at Fishing River ranged from 24 to 53 feet withwidths tending to decrease while progressing upstream. The exception was Station 4, theuppermost site, which was 15 feet wider than Station 1, the lowermost site. Stream flow tendedto decrease in upstream stations in the watershed, with several upstream sample stations havingno measurable flow. At Clear Creek, the upper- and lowermost stations each had measurableflow, but the middle station was eliminated as a suitable sample site because the streambed wasnearly dry. Drought conditions in northwestern Missouri during the fall and winter months priorto our sample season limited our ability to sample the upper reaches of some tributaries and insome instances diminished the amount of habitat available for macroinvertebrates.

Table 2Physical Characteristics of the Stations

Creek Station Avg. Width (ft.) Flow (cfs)Fishing River 1 39 7.26Fishing River 2 33 3.29Fishing River 3 24 1.83Fishing River 4 53 0.0Clear Creek 1 38 0.27Clear Creek 3 47 0.03Muddy Fork 1 41 0.17Muddy Fork 2 45 0.0Carroll Creek 1 25 0.06Carroll Creek 2 35 0.0


Table 2 (cont’d)Creek Station Avg. Width (ft.) Flow (cfs)

Williams Creek 1 17 0.30Williams Creek 2 27 0.03EF Fishing R. 1 23 0.55EF Fishing R. 2 46 0.17Holmes Creek 1 18 0.05

In situ water quality measurements are summarized in Table 3. Temperature among FishingRiver sites was stable, varying no more than 2°C. The lowest temperature reading was recordedat Fishing River Station 2; this reading was taken earliest in the day among Fishing River sites.Among the tributaries temperature was, with the exception of East Fork Fishing River, higher atthe upstream stations. At East Fork Fishing River, temperature at the stations varied only by asingle degree, with the upstream site being lower.

Table 3In situ Water Quality Measurements at all Stations

Creek/Station ParameterTemperature

(°C)DissolvedO2 (mg/L)

Conductivity(µS/cm)

pH Turbidity(NTU)

Fishing R. #1 15.0 8.6 677 8.1 53.9Fishing R. #2 13.0 10.6 676 8.1 55.2Fishing R. #3 14.0 13.9 738 8.5 16.7Fishing R. #4 15.0 12.6 627 8.7 53.1Clear Cr. #1 16.5 8.9 601 7.7 15.4Clear Cr. #3 21.5 9.4 580 8.4 2.4Muddy Fk. #1 13.5 10.3 584 7.8 7.9Muddy Fk. #2 15.0 10.7 695 8.1 11.7Carroll Cr. #1 15.0 10.3 620 8.3 7.4Carroll Cr. #2 17.0 10.0 542 7.9 2.6Williams Cr. #1 14.0 10.8 No data 8.0 15.8Williams Cr. #2 16.5 10.3 549 8.1 18.3EF Fishing R. #1 12.0 10.0 815 8.4 15.1EF Fishing R. #2 11.0 11.0 No data 8.4 1.65Holmes Cr. #1 16.5 9.5 663 8.0 18.6

Turbidity levels were generally higher in water samples collected from Fishing River than fromits tributaries, averaging 54.1 NTU among three of the four sites (excluding Fishing River 3,which had an outlier result of 16.7 NTU). Turbidity among the tributaries showed no trends,except that the most turbid readings from the tributaries were comparable to or lower than thelowest reading observed at the Fishing River sample stations.

Conductivity and pH were consistent among sites with one exception. Conductivity at thedownstream East Fork Fishing River site was elevated compared to the other sites. This reading


is likely related to the elevated chloride concentrations observed at the same site. Due toequipment malfunction, conductivity was not recorded for the upstream East Fork Fishing Riverstation. We are, therefore, unable to make any definite inferences of whether this conductivityreading is typical of that found throughout East Fork Fishing River or whether the treatmentfacility directly upstream from the sample site was the cause.

Nutrient and chloride concentrations are presented in Table 4. Ammonia as nitrogen was belowthe detection limit of 0.05 mg/L for all but Fishing River Stations 1 and 3 and Carroll CreekStation 1. Measurable nitrate/nitrite levels were present at each of the Fishing River samplestations, with the highest readings occurring at Stations 1 and 4. Muddy Fork Station 1 was theonly tributary at which nitrate/nitrite concentrations were observed above the detection limit.Concentrations of TKN and total phosphorus were variable among sites, but were generallyhigher at each of the Fishing River stations. Among Fishing River sites, the lowestconcentrations of TKN and total phosphorus were observed at Station 2. Chloride concentrationswere relatively consistent among Fishing River samples. The lowest chloride concentrationswere observed at Fishing River Station 4, whereas the highest were observed just downstream atStation 3. Among all sites surveyed, the highest chloride concentrations were observed at thedownstream East Fork Fishing River sample site. Although chloride levels at this site werenearly twice as high as the next nearest readings, other nutrient parameters associated withwastewater discharge (TKN, phosphorus, ammonia, and nitrate/nitrite) were not elevatedcompared to other sites in the watershed.

Table 4Nutrient Concentrations at all Stations

Creek/Station Parameter (mg/L)NH3-N NO2+NO3-N TKN Total

PhosphorusChloride

Fishing R. #1 1.47 1.50 2.57 0.30 67.4Fishing R. #2 * 0.21 0.85 0.22 68.2Fishing R. #3 0.12 0.82 2.32 0.35 77.2Fishing R. #4 * 1.35 2.73 0.64 57.5Clear Cr. #1 * * 0.48 0.10 27.8Clear Cr. #3 * * 0.35 0.09 12.8Muddy Fk. #1 * 0.05 0.53 * 28.1Muddy Fk. #2 * * 0.73 0.09 57.9Carroll Cr. #1 0.06 * 0.46 0.07 28.4Carroll Cr. #2 * * 0.26 0.06 12.2Williams Cr. #1 * * 0.73 0.10 56.6Williams Cr. #2 * * 0.47 0.09 20.6EF Fishing R. #1 * * 0.53 0.10 132EF Fishing R. #2 * * 0.31 * 30.6Holmes Cr. #1 * * 1.03 0.20 60.8*below detectable levels


5.2 Habitat Assessment

Habitat assessment scores were recorded for each sampling station. Results are presented inTable 5. According to the project procedure, for a study site to fully support a biologicalcommunity, the total score from the physical habitat assessment should be 75% to 100% similarto the total score of a reference site. The mean habitat score for Little Drywood Creek, abiocriteria reference stream used for comparison, was 124. The mean habitat score amongFishing River sites was 111.8. All Fishing River watershed sites had habitat scores that werewithin the aforementioned range of similarity. It was therefore inferred that, based solely onhabitat, the sites should be capable of supporting comparable biological communities.

Table 5Reference Streams and Fishing River Watershed Habitat Assessment Scores

Reference Streams HabitatScore

Fishing RiverWatershed Sites

HabitatScore

% of MeanReference

Little Drywood #1 122 Fishing River #1 100 81Little Drywood #2 126 Fishing River #2 127 102

Fishing River #3 123 99Fishing River #4 97 78Clear Creek #1 124 100Clear Creek #3 102 82Muddy Fork #1 114 92Muddy Fork #2 99 80Carroll Creek #1 125 101Carroll Creek #2 108 87Williams Creek #1 107 86Williams Creek #2 104 84EF Fishing River #1 100 81EF Fishing River #2 93 75Holmes Creek #1 100 81

Mean Reference StreamScore 124

5.3 Biological Assessment

5.3.1 Fishing River Mainstem

Metrics calculated for Fishing River and its tributaries were compared to biological criteria fromthe PMBL EDU biocriteria reference sites. These criteria for the spring sample season arepresented in Table 6. This comparison was made to assess the degree to which using biologicalcriteria was applicable for this watershed. Most biocriteria reference streams are fourth and fifthorder and, although Fishing River is a fourth order stream, its tributaries tend to be second andthird order. Larger streams may have more available habitat and higher numbers ofmacroinvertebrate taxa and diversity than smaller streams.


Table 6Biological Criteria for Warm Water Reference Streams in the Plains/Missouri Tributaries

between the Blue and Lamine Rivers EDU, Spring SeasonScore = 5 Score = 3 Score = 1

TR >50 50-25 <25EPTT >8 8-4 <4

BI <7.16 7.16-8.58 >8.58SI >2.29 2.29-1.14 <1.14

Of the four Fishing River stations surveyed for macroinvertebrates, two (Stations 2 and 4) werebiologically supporting, whereas the remaining two were partially supporting. Each of thestations exhibited identical metric scores with the exception of EPT Taxa. Stations achieving therank of biologically supporting had more EPT taxa than the remaining stations, which resulted ina slightly higher Stream Condition Index (Table 7). The actual number of total taxa and EPTTaxa were higher at Station 2 than the other Fishing River sites (Figure 1). A total of four namedtributaries as well as effluent from the Excelsior Springs wastewater facility enter Fishing Riverbetween Stations 1 and 2. Any one of these tributaries (or a combination of all) may contributeto the decline in water quality and biotic indices observed at Station 1.

5.3.2 Fishing River Tributaries

Scores of the individual metrics from each of the Fishing River tributary stations exhibitedsimilar trends compared to those from the Fishing River mainstem (Table 8). Specifically, withthe exception of EPT Taxa, metric scores were identical among nearly all sample stations(Muddy Fork Station 2 was the only site lacking sufficient taxa richness to achieve the top scoreof 5). As a result, little difference in SCI exists among the tributaries.

5.3.3 Comparisons of Fishing River and its Tributaries to Plains/Missouri Tributariesbetween the Blue and Lamine Rivers EDU Biological Criteria

The four metrics calculated for Fishing River (Table 7) and its tributaries (Table 8) were roughlycomparable to the biological criteria reference metrics. All sites exceeded the top score for theShannon Diversity Index reference metric and all but one exceeded the taxa richness metric topscore, despite the relatively small sizes of the tributaries.

5.3.4 Macroinvertebrate Percent and Community Composition

Fishing River MainstemThe total number of macroinvertebrate taxa, EPT Taxa, and percent EPT for Fishing River andits tributaries is presented in Table 9. This table also provides percent composition data for thefive dominant macroinvertebrate families at each sample station. The percent of relativeabundance data were averaged from the sum of the three

Biological Assessment ReportFishing RiverJanuary 27, 2004Page 12 of 21 Figure 1: Fishing River Taxa Richness and EPT Taxa

Sample Station

Num

ber o

f Tax

a

Total Taxa EPT Taxa

10

20

30

40

50

0

60

70

4 3 2 1


Table 7Fishing River Metric Values and Scores, Spring 2003, Using Plains/Missouri Tributaries

between the Blue and Lamine Rivers EDU BiocriteriaSite # TR EPTT BI SDI SCI Support

#4 Value 59 4 8.06 2.98#4 Score 5 3 3 5 16 Full#3 Value 53 3 7.43 2.61#3 Score 5 1 3 5 14 Partial#2 Value 66 6 7.22 3.27#2 Score 5 3 3 5 16 Full#1 Value 56 3 7.65 3.20#1 Score 5 1 3 5 14 Partial

Table 8Fishing River Tributaries’ Metric Values and Scores, Spring 2003, Using Plains/Missouri

Tributaries between the Blue and Lamine Rivers EDU BiocriteriaSite TR EPTT BI SDI SCI Support

Clear Cr. #1 value 77 7 7.46 3.09Clear Cr. #1 score 5 3 3 5 16 FullClear Cr. #3 value 51 3 7.79 2.81Clear Cr. #3 score 5 1 3 5 14 PartialMuddy Fk. #1 value 67 8 7.26 3.35Muddy Fk. #1 score 5 3 3 5 16 FullMuddy Fk. #2 value 50 5 7.23 3.27Muddy Fk. #2 score 3 3 3 5 14 PartialCarroll Cr. #1 value 59 4 7.80 3.37Carroll Cr. #1 score 5 3 3 5 16 FullCarroll Cr. #2 value 52 5 8.32 2.89Carroll Cr. #2 score 5 3 3 5 16 FullWilliams Cr. #1 value 62 3 8.14 3.14Williams Cr. #1 score 5 1 3 5 14 PartialWilliams Cr. #2 value 53 4 7.77 2.86Williams Cr. #2 score 5 3 3 5 16 FullEF Fishing R. #1 value 59 2 8.24 2.95EF Fishing R. #1 score 5 1 3 5 14 PartialEF Fishing R. #2 value 64 8 7.38 3.30EF Fishing R. #2 score 5 3 3 5 16 FullHolmes Cr. #1 value 63 5 7.77 3.22Holmes Cr. #1 score 5 3 3 5 16 Full


Table 9Spring 2003 Fishing River Watershed Macroinvertebrate Composition

Fishing River Clear Cr. Muddy Fk. Carroll Cr. Williams Cr. EF Fishing R. Holmes Cr.Variable-Station 1 2 3 4 1 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1Taxa richness 56 66 53 59 77 51 67 50 59 52 62 53 59 64 63Number EPT Taxa 3 6 3 4 7 3 8 5 4 5 3 4 2 8 5% Ephemeroptera 0.3 1.4 0.2 8.7 3.3 22.8 13.6 7.8 7.9 1.7 1.6 10.2 1.0 5.6 3.9% Plecoptera - - - - - - - - 0.3 0.5 - 0.3 - - -% Trichoptera 0.1 2.2 0.3 0.4 1.1 0.3 1.2 0.9 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.4 - 1.0 0.1% DominantFamiliesChironomidae 72.2 59.4 55.1 70.1 55.4 33.7 49.8 50.0 49.1 45.7 44.2 53.2 53.2 29.2 63.6Elmidae 6.3 3.0 - - 2.9 - 9.2 - - - 6.7 4.0 1.9 6.1 3.3Tubificidae 5.3 5.5 6.7 4.0 8.6 5.4 4.4 - 11.9 10.9 10.0 8.6 26.4 12.4 15.4Physidae 3.8 - 7.5 2.6 3.9 - - - - 6.0 18.2 - 3.6 - -Corixidae 3.6 13.3 17.9 - - - - - - - - - - - -Coenagrionidae - 7.4 3.4 - - - - - - - - - - - -Caenidae - - - 8.5 - 22.7 11.8 7.6 6.4 - - 10.1 - - 3.2Lymnaeidae - - - 2.7 - 9.6 3.8 5.4 6.7 10.9 - 10.5 - - -Ceratopogonidae - - - - 14.8 - - 12.7 5.3 - - - - 15.8 2.4Ancylidae - - - - - 6.7 - - - - - - - - -Dytiscidae - - - - - - - 3.9 - - - - - - -Sphaeriidae - - - - - - - - - 8.5 9.5 - 3.9 - -Hyalellidae - - - - - - - - - - - - - 9.3 -


macroinvertebrate habitats (nonflow, large woody debris, and rootmat) sampled at each station.Spring 2003 macroinvertebrate samples from Fishing River averaged 59 total taxa (range 53-66)and 4 EPT Taxa (range 3-6). Midge larvae (Chironomidae) were the dominant taxa among allFishing River sites; although aquatic worms were variable in their relative rankings among sites,they were present as one of the top five taxa at each Fishing River site. No trends relative toposition in the drainage were apparent among Fishing River sites. Station 2, which was locateddownstream from the majority of sites in the watershed, exhibited some of the bestmacroinvertebrate scores compared to other mainstem sites with the highest taxa richness, EPTTaxa, and percent caddisflies (Trichoptera). Fishing River Station 3, approximately 5.3 milesupstream from Station 2, had the fewest total taxa and was tied with Station 1 for fewest EPTTaxa. Station 3 also had the lowest percentage of chironomids among Fishing River sites.

Fishing River TributariesMacroinvertebrate samples from the 11 sites among the Fishing River tributaries averaged 60total taxa (range 77-50) and 5 EPT Taxa (range 2-8). Chironomids were among the top five taxaat all sites and tubificid worms were among the top five taxa at all sites except for the upstreamMuddy Fork station. Stoneflies (Plecoptera) were present in low numbers (<4 individuals) onlyat the two Carroll Creek stations and the upstream Williams Creek site.

With the exception of East Fork Fishing River, all downstream sites had higher taxa richnessscores than their upstream counterparts. East Fork Fishing River Station 1 also had the lowestnumber of EPT Taxa, was the only site lacking caddisflies (Trichoptera), and had the highestpercentage of tubificid worms in samples, nearly double that of the next nearest site. East ForkFishing River Station 2, approximately 6.7 miles upstream, had the lowest percentage ofchironomids and tied for the highest number of EPT Taxa.

The upstream Clear Creek station had the second lowest percentage of chironomids and thehighest percentage of mayflies (Ephemeroptera) among all sample sites. The downstream ClearCreek station had the highest taxa richness and tied for second most EPT Taxa. This site alsohad the highest percentage of chironomids and the second highest percentage of caddisfliesamong the tributaries.

The downstream Muddy Fork station had the second highest taxa richness and EPT Taxa amongtributaries. This site also had the highest percentage of caddisflies among tributary samples.The upstream Muddy Fork site was the only station in which tubificid worms were not rankedamong the most numerous five taxa.

Biocriteria Reference StreamsSpring macroinvertebrate data for one PMBL EDU biocriteria reference stream (East ForkCrooked River) and one Plains/Osage EDU biocriteria reference stream (Little Drywood Creek)are presented in Table 10. Macroinvertebrate data from these streams, sampled between 1995and 2001, are to provide a comparison with the macroinvertebrate fauna of the Fishing Riverwatershed.


Table 10Plains/Osage EDU and Plains/Missouri Tributaries between the Blue and Lamine Rivers EDU Biocriteria Reference Stream

Macroinvertebrate Composition, Spring SeasonEast Fork Crooked R. Little Drywood Creek

Sample Year 1999 2000 1995 1998 2000 2001Station-Variable 1 1 1 2 0 2 1 1Taxa richness 65 48 50 56 69 73 74 50Number EPT 13 7 8 10 13 16 14 8% Ephemeroptera 16.7 0.5 20.5 15.3 9.7 12.1 4.5 2.5% Plecoptera 0.4 0.1 4.0 4.7 3.1 3.2 0.9 0.9% Trichoptera 3.4 0.4 0.3 4.7 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6% Dominant FamiliesChironomidae 70.9 66.4 27.8 48.6 31.7 46.9 56.1 71.5Baetidate 9.2 - - - - - - -Heptageniidae 5.9 - 7.9 8.4 - - - -Tubificidae 3.3 15.6 - 5.2 14.5 17.2 12.0 5.8Hydropsychidae 3.1 - - - - - - -Ceratopogonidae - 7.6 - - - - 3.4 -Simuliidae - 3.3 18.0 - 23.8 5.2 4.1 6.2unidentified dipteran - 1.7 - - - - - -Hyalellidae - - 13.1 5.5 - - - -Caenidae - - 9.7 3.7 4.3 6.6 - -Asellidae - - - 3.7 8.2 6.6 - 4.6Limnephilidae - - - 3.7 - - - -Acarina - - - - - - 3.3 -Enchytraeidae - - - - - - - 2.0


Taxa richness for the biocriteria reference streams ranged from 48 to 74 and total EPT Taxaranged from 8 to 16 during spring sample seasons. With respect to taxa richness and EPT Taxa,considerable variability was observed among years for each sample station. As was observedwith the Fishing River watershed samples, chironomids and tubificids were among the dominanttaxa at each sampling event. Black fly larvae (Simuliidae) were among the dominant taxa inboth streams in all but two instances at the reference streams; in contrast, black flies wereobserved in low densities at only two sites in the Fishing River watershed.

6.0 Discussion

With few exceptions, little variability in habitat, water quality, or macroinvertebrate indices wasobserved among sites in the Fishing River watershed. For instances in which large changesoccurred or where observations have run contrary to trends observed among the remaining sites,further explanation and speculation into potential causes is offered. As a result, the Discussionsection tends to focus on apparent extremes in observations, both good and bad.

Fishing River Station 4, the most upstream site on the mainstem of Fishing River was locatedapproximately 2.7 miles downstream from the Kansas City, Fishing River Wastewater TreatmentFacility (WWTF). Because this treatment facility was located so far upstream in the watershed,it was not feasible to establish a baseline sampling station on the mainstem that was notinfluenced by wastewater discharge. As a result, several water quality parameters observed atour upstream sample site, which normally would serve as a basis of comparison for downstreamstations, were similar to or worse than the other Fishing River sites.

Fishing River Station 1, the most downstream mainstem site, had higher NH3-N and NO2+NO3-N concentrations than any other site in the watershed. In addition, TKN and phosphorusreadings were among the highest observed. Although Fishing River Station 1 receives thecombined flow of 21 permitted wastewater treatment facilities ranging from septic tanks andlagoons to municipal wastewater treatment plants, this fact alone does not explain the elevatednutrient concentrations. If cumulative effects of wastewater treatment facilities were the solecause, one would expect that Fishing River Station 2, which was located approximately 12.5miles upstream of Station 1, also would have comparable or slightly lower nutrient readings. Infact, Station 2 had the lowest NO2+NO3-N, TKN, and phosphorus concentrations among FishingRiver sites.

Several macroinvertebrate differences also were observed at Fishing River Station 1 compared toStation 2. The downstream Fishing River station exhibited lower taxa richness and EPT Taxa aswell as a lower percentage of mayflies, caddisflies, and water boatmen (Corixidae) compared tosamples collected from Fishing River Station 2. At the same time, we observed increases in thepercentage of chironomids, riffle beetles (Elmidae), and physid snails (Physidae) in thedownstream station. According to their biotic index values, the taxa mentioned previously thatexhibited declines (or elimination) in the downstream station all were in the range of moderatelyinsensitive to organic pollutants. One group that was more abundant in Station 1, physid snails,is very tolerant; the others, chironomids and elmids, are variable.


Considering the degree of variation in biotic indices among Fishing River sites, theseobservations could be further examples of this variability. It is also possible, however, that thewater quality and biotic indices of the mainstem Fishing River stations are influenced by theirproximity to municipal wastewater effluent discharge. Fishing River Station 4 is approximately2.7 miles downstream from the Kansas City, Fishing River WWTF and Station 3 isapproximately 1.2 miles downstream from the Kearney Sequential Batch Reactor WWTF.Station 2, on the other hand, is 6.5 miles downstream from the nearest effluent discharge point,which may account for some of the improving trends of water quality and biotic indicatorsobserved at this site. Fishing River Station 1 is approximately 12 miles downstream from theExcelsior Springs WWTF discharge point. Although there is greater distance between FishingRiver Station 1 and the nearest discharge, the volume of effluent (actual flow) produced by theExcelsior Springs facility is more than triple the combined flow produced by the North KansasCity and Kearney facilities. A logical conclusion might be that this wastewater influx issufficient to cause Fishing River Station 1 water quality and biotic indicators to fall back tolevels more comparable to Stations 3 and 4.

East Fork Fishing River, which flows through Excelsior Springs, also may contribute to thedecline of water quality and biotic indicators observed at Fishing River Station 1. None of thenutrient parameters that we tested from the downstream East Fork Fishing River station exceptchloride, however, are elevated in comparison to the relatively low levels observed at FishingRiver Station 2. Although the levels of nutrients and water quality parameters observed in EastFork Fishing River may not be obvious factors contributing to the Fishing Rivermacroinvertebrate decline observed between Stations 2 and 1, there may be other factors presentthat our analyses did not detect. Based on the decline of certain East Fork Fishing Rivermacroinvertebrate indices in the downstream station (discussed below), there may be some agentassociated with urban runoff, agricultural runoff, or some unknown that also contributes to themacroinvertebrate decline in Fishing River.

East Fork Fishing River was the only tributary in this study in which taxa richness was lower insamples collected from its downstream station. It also exhibited the sharpest drop in EPT Taxa,from 8 to 2, as well as the complete elimination of caddisflies at the downstream site. In thesame reach, tubificid worms more than doubled in their abundance and chironomids nearlydoubled. Habitat scores, however, were similar between sites, with the downstream site beingslightly higher, and flow was slightly higher at the downstream site. Among detectable nutrientparameters at East Fork Fishing River--TKN, total phosphorus, and chloride--all were higher atthe downstream site. Of particular note was chloride, which climbed from 30.6 mg/L at theupstream site to 132 mg/L at the downstream site. Given the naturally-occurring mineral springsin Excelsior Springs, the elevated chloride levels may be at least partially attributable to springinfluence. Turbidity was 1.65 NTU at Station 2 (the lowest among all sites) and was 15.1 NTUat Station 1 which, although not particularly high when compared to the other Fishing Rivertributaries, was a considerable change between the up- and downstream sites. Finally, thedownstream East Fork Fishing River site had higher conductivity than water samples collectedfrom all other sites (815 µS/cm). This elevated conductivity observation may be linked to theincreased concentration of chloride mentioned above. Unfortunately, we were unable to conducta conductivity reading at the upstream site for comparison due to meter failure.


Drought conditions in northwestern Missouri may have played a role in certain water quality andmacroinvertebrate parameters. Very little precipitation had fallen in this portion of the state inthe months preceding our study. The resultant lack of high flows during the preceding fall andwinter months likely resulted in the thick deposits of leaves and, at the upstream East ForkFishing River site, thick mats of filamentous algae remaining at our study sites. Limited flowsalso may have served to provide less dilution to possible nutrient-rich discharges enteringstreams in the Fishing River watershed. Drought conditions also slightly altered the scope of thisproject. Several upstream sites were removed from consideration due to lack of water. Ofparticular interest were the upper reaches of Williams Creek and East Fork Fishing River. Eachof these streams is impounded and, in the case of Crystal Lakes on East Fork Fishing River, ispart of a lakeside suburban community. Although the lake itself experiences periodic seasonaldissolved oxygen depletion and fish kills (Steve Fisher, MDC Fisheries Biologist, pers. comm.),these particular water quality problems have not been observed on East Fork Fishing River.Watkins Mill Lake is a reservoir on Williams Creek and is on the 303(d) list of impaired watersfor excessive fecal coliform. Our original intent was to sample upstream of each of thesereservoirs in an effort to observe whether any water quality or bioassessment parameter trendscould be associated with stream gradient and the presence of reservoirs. Although it may bepossible to conduct this type of sampling during a normal rainfall year, the study sites at bothstreams were class “C” and any sampling further upstream may not yield meaningful resultsusing bioassessment protocols.

Although habitat scores for all study sites fell within the range of similarity compared toreference sites, over half of the sites were between 75 and 85% similar and neared the point atwhich habitat quality might be considered questionable. Factors leading to lower scores at thesesites were largely attributable to channel flow status (the percentage of water filling the availablechannel) and vegetative protection of streambanks (including the amount of vegetation coveringa streambank, bank stability, and riparian zone width). Sites with the lowest scores tended tohave the least amount of flow as well as some memorably steep, unstable banks.

7.0 Summary

1. With the exception of Fishing River Station 2, which exhibited some comparatively goodwater quality and biotic indices, there were few notable differences among Fishing River sites.

2. Proximity to effluent discharge points from wastewater treatment facilities appears to besuppressing the macroinvertebrate community in Fishing River. Fishing River Station 2 wasrelatively removed from wastewater influence and exhibited the best macroinvertebrate andwater quality indicators among the mainstem sites.

3. The highest degree of decline among macroinvertebrate and water quality parametersoccurred at East Fork Fishing River Station 1 compared to its upstream counterpart.

4. Factors contributing to the lower habitat scores among sites were metrics associated with lowflows and bank stability.


5. The Semi-quantitative Macroinvertebrate Stream Bioassessment Project Procedure found thatFishing River Stations 2 and 4 were biologically supporting, whereas Stations 1 and 3 werepartially supporting.

6. Carroll Creek was the only tributary in which both stations had biologically supportingscores. It also lies in the only watershed lacking any permitted wastewater discharge. Theremaining tributaries all had one station with biologically supporting and one station withpartially supporting macroinvertebrate scores. No trends were observed with respect to thesestations’ position in the watershed.

7. All sample sites in the watershed scored either 14 or 16, straddling the dividing point betweenbiologically supporting and partially supporting. None of the stations exhibitedmacroinvertebrate community scores approaching those of high quality communities, i.e., scoresof 18 or 20.

8.0 Literature Cited

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2001. Field Sheet and Chain of Custody Record.MDNR Environmental Services Program. Jefferson City, Missouri. 8 pp.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2003a. Flow Measurements in Open Channels.MDNR Environmental Services Program. Jefferson City, Missouri. 9 pp.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2003b. Semi-quantitative MacroinvertebrateStream Bioassessment Project Procedure. MDNR Environmental Services Program.Jefferson City, Missouri. 24 pp.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2003c. Stream Habitat Assessment ProjectProcedure. MDNR Environmental Services Program. Jefferson City, Missouri. 40 pp.

Missouri Department of Natural Resources. 2003d. Required/Recommended Containers,Volumes, Preservatives, Holding Times, and Special Sampling Considerations. MDNREnvironmental Services Program. Jefferson City, Missouri. 21 pp.


Submitted by: _________________________________________Dave MichaelsonEnvironmental SpecialistWater Quality Monitoring SectionEnvironmental Services Program

Date: _________________________________________

Approved by: _________________________________________Earl W. PabstDirectorEnvironmental Services Program

DM:th

c: Jim Macy, Regional Director, KCROJohn Ford, QAPP Project Manager, WPPPhil Schroeder, Chief, Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Section, WPP

Appendix A

Proposed Bioassessment Study PlanFishing River

February 11, 2003

Missouri Department of Natural ResourcesBioassessment Study Plan

Fishing River Watershed--Clinton, Clay, and Ray CountiesFebruary 11, 2003

Background

The Fishing River watershed is approximately 282 square miles and originates in centralClay County, Missouri with major tributaries entering from the north and east. Forpurposes of this study, major tributaries include Clear Creek, Muddy Fork, Carroll Creek,Williams Creek, Holmes Creek, and East Fork Fishing River. The upper portion ofFishing River lies in a mostly rural setting, flowing through Kearney and ExcelsiorSprings before entering the Missouri River near Orrick. Fishing River lies in thePlains/Missouri Tributaries between the Blue and Lamine Rivers EDU. It is a stream oflow relative gradient with dolomite-limestone geology in the upper watershed andalluvium further downstream.

Although much of the watershed remains rural, Clay County has experienced tremendousgrowth during the past decade. According to the Clay County Comprehensive Plan(amended 1999), the current land development pattern has the potential to consume muchof the county’s remaining rural land in the early 21st century. U.S. Census data indicatethat Clay County’s population has grown 20 percent since 1990. The Kansas City areacontinues to spread toward this area; in addition, populations of towns such as Kearneyand Excelsior Springs are growing, resulting in an accelerated rate of water qualitydecline in this watershed.

Streams subjected to urban development are particularly vulnerable to water quality andhabitat degradations. Potential water quality stressors include the addition of pointsource pollutants (e.g., wastewater treatment plant or other permitted discharges,accidental or deliberate spills, and illegal dumping), nonpoint source pollutants (e.g.,sediment and nutrients due to increased runoff; toxic chemicals such as petroleumproducts, metals, pesticides, and fertilizers), and hydrologic alterations (e.g., increaseddownstream flooding, reduced base flows). In addition, habitat losses often result fromresidential or commercial development. The degree to which these impacts occur in theFishing River watershed is unknown and has prompted a joint effort between theMissouri Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) and the Missouri Department ofConservation (MDC) to study the current status of the watershed.

Objectives

We propose that an assessment of the aquatic fauna of the Fishing River watershed beconducted now as a baseline, prior to further development occurring. Our objectives areto: 1) determine whether there is greater aquatic life impairment in the most downstreamportions of Fishing River relative to sections upstream that are isolated from tributariesthat serve as receiving systems for permitted point-source facilities; 2) rank

macroinvertebrate community metric scores from each of the major tributaries andcompare the rankings to the level of human disturbance in each Fishing River major sub-watershed; 3) establish a baseline to document the condition of the aquatic fauna as itcurrently exists as a point of comparison for future studies; 4) supplement fishcommunity information gathered by MDC in this watershed.

Null Hypotheses

1) Macroinvertebrate assemblages will not differ among longitudinally separate reachesof Fishing River, separated relative to tributary influence.

2) Measures of habitat quality will not differ among longitudinally separate reaches ofFishing River.

3) The ranking of biological metrics and levels of human disturbance will not differamong Fishing River sub-watersheds.

Study Design

General: The study area brackets approximately 14 miles of mainstem Fishing River aswell as 31 miles of Fishing River tributaries. The upstream boundary on Fishing River islocated southwest of Kearney at the Plattsburg Road bridge crossing; the downstreamboundary is northeast of Missouri City at the Greenwood Road bridge crossing. A totalof four Fishing River stations will be surveyed with an additional 12 stations among themajor tributaries.

Biological Sampling: Each macroinvertebrate station will consist of a lengthapproximately 20 times the average stream width, and will contain at least two riffleareas. To assess variability among sample stations, stream discharge measurements,water quality samples, and habitat assessments will be recorded during macroinvertebratesurveys. Sampling will be conducted during spring 2003 (March 15 through April 15).

Macroinvertebrates will be sampled according to the guidelines of the Semi-QuantitativeMacroinvertebrate Stream Bioassessment Project Procedure (SMSBPP). Fishing Riverand its tributaries will be considered a “riffle/pool” dominated stream, with samples to becollected from flow over coarse substrate, depositional (non-flow), and rootmat habitats.Each macroinvertebrate sample will be a composite of six subsamples within eachhabitat.

Water Quality Sampling: Water samples from all sampled stations will be analyzed atthe ESP laboratory for ammonia, nitrogen as NO2+NO3, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, totalphosphorus, chloride, and turbidity. Field measurements will include pH, conductivity,temperature, and dissolved oxygen.

Habitat Sampling Methods: Stream discharge will be measured at each samplinglocation using a Marsh-McBirney flow meter. Stream habitat assessments also will beconducted within each study area following the guidelines of MDNR-FSS-032.

Laboratory Methods: All samples of macroinvertebrates will be processed andidentified as per MDNR-FSS-209, Taxonomic Levels for MacroinvertebrateIdentification. Turbidity samples will be analyzed at the MDNR biological laboratory.

Data Recording and Analyses: Macroinvertebrate data will be entered in a MicrosoftAccess database in accordance with MDNR-WQMS-214, Quality Control Procedures forData Processing. Data analysis is automated within the Access database. Four standardmetrics are calculated according to the SMSBPP: Total Taxa (TT); Ephemeroptera,Plecoptera, Trichoptera Taxa (EPTT); Biotic Index (BI); and the Shannon Index (SI) willbe calculated for each reach.

Macroinvertebrate data for Fishing River and for tributaries in which more than onestation occur will be compared longitudinally. This longitudinal comparison willcompare reaches upstream and downstream of potential influences (e.g., stormwater orwastewater, influx of water from tributaries). Longitudinal patterns will be illustratedusing XY line graphs with stream location (station number) on the X-axis and biologicalcharacteristics on the Y-axis. Data also will be summarized and presented in bar graphscomparing means of the four standard metrics and other parameters at each of the stationson Fishing River and each of the tributaries.

The standard four macroinvertebrate community metrics will be calculated for each of theFishing River major tributaries and compared to one other. Land use information,obtained using GIS, also will be compared among the major tributaries’ watershed toobserve any potential relation between metric score and land use.

Data Reporting: Results of the study will be summarized and interpreted in reportformat.

Quality Control: As stated in the various MDNR Project Procedures and StandardOperating Procedures.

Attachments: Map of the Fishing River watershed with sampling stations.

Appendix B

Maps

Fishing River WatershedPlains/Missouri Tributaries between the Blue and Lamine Rivers EDU

&

Fishing River Sample StationsPlains/Missouri Tributaries between the Blue and Lamine Rivers EDU

Appendix C

Fishing River Watershed Macroinvertebrate Taxa Lists

Fishing River #1a: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 2 1Berosus -99Dubiraphia 6 14 2Macronychus glabratus 1 14 16Peltodytes 1Stenelmis 4Ablabesmyia 1 4Ceratopogoninae 14 4 3Chironomus 9 1Cricotopus bicinctus 1Cricotopus/Orthocladius 12 86Cryptochironomus 10Cryptotendipes 17 1Dicrotendipes 5 30 55Diplocladius 1Diptera 2Dolichopodidae 1Glyptotendipes 15 8Hemerodromia 3Hydrobaenus 11 36 51Nanocladius 1Paracladopelma 2Paralauterborniella 23Parametriocnemus 1Paraphaenocladius 2 6 4Paratanytarsus 2Paratendipes 2Phaenopsectra 1 7Polypedilum convictum grp 1 3Polypedilum halterale grp 32 1Polypedilum illinoense grp 4 44 31Polypedilum scalaenum grp 6 1 2Procladius 35Rheocricotopus 1Stelechomyia 1Tanytarsus 3 21 19Thienemannimyia grp. 19 21Tribelos 1Zavrelimyia 2Stenacron 1 1 1Belostoma -99Ranatra nigra 1Trichocorixa 27 6Ferrissia 2 1 2

Fishing River #1a (continued): Spring 2003Fossaria 3Physella 6 21 8Argia 4 19Enallagma 1Hydropsyche -99Nectopsyche 1Branchiura sowerbyi 6Limnodrilus cervix 5Limnodrilus claparedianus 4Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 1 1Tubificidae 31Sphaeriidae 1 3 6

NF = Non-flow HabitatRM = Rootmat HabitatSG = Snag (i.e., Large Woody Debris Habitat)-99 = Present in Samples

Fishing River #1b: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGBerosus 1Dubiraphia 7 8Helichus lithophilus 1Macronychus glabratus 1 7 1Stenelmis 2 1 1Palaemonetes kadiakensis 1Ablabesmyia 2 1 1Ceratopogoninae 4 9 3Chironomus 31 1 1Cricotopus bicinctus 1 4Cricotopus/Orthocladius 1 31 86Cryptochironomus 5 1 1Cryptotendipes 9Dicrotendipes 2 17 51Eukiefferiella 1Glyptotendipes 1 11 1Gonomyia 2Hemerodromia 1Hydrobaenus 7 38 52Nanocladius 1 5Natarsia 1Paracladopelma 1Paralauterborniella 21Paraphaenocladius 2 7 9Phaenopsectra 1 3Polypedilum halterale grp 16 1Polypedilum illinoense grp 44 38Polypedilum scalaenum grp 1 2Procladius 37 9 1Pseudosmittia 1Rheocricotopus 2Simulium 1Tanytarsus 3 9 16Thienemannimyia grp. 17 8Zavrelimyia 2Ranatra fusca 1Ranatra nigra 1Trichocorixa 9 10Ferrissia 4Fossaria 2Physella 4 26 8Argia 4 20Macromia 1Nasiaeschna pentacantha -99

Fishing River #1b (continued): Spring 2003Nectopsyche 2 6 1Aulodrilus 6Branchiura sowerbyi 18Enchytraeidae 1Limnodrilus cervix 19Limnodrilus claparedianus 3Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 6 1Tubificidae 53Sphaeriidae 5 1 15


Fishing River #2: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGHyalella azteca 8Dubiraphia 5 16 1Helichus lithophilus 2Hydrochus 1Hydroporus 1Laccophilus 1Macronychus glabratus 5Peltodytes 4Stenelmis 1 1Palaemonetes kadiakensis -99Ablabesmyia 1Ceratopogoninae 5 11 10Chironomus 6Cladotanytarsus 1 1Cricotopus bicinctus 1 3Cricotopus/Orthocladius 6 83Cryptochironomus 8Cryptotendipes 3Dicrotendipes 1 13 64Diplocladius 1Glyptotendipes 1 4 25Hydrobaenus 11 4 14Nanocladius 5 1Parachironomus 4Paracladopelma 2Parakiefferiella 1 22Paralauterborniella 14 4Paraphaenocladius 1 1 1Paratanytarsus 3Phaenopsectra 8Polypedilum convictum grp 12Polypedilum halterale grp 6 1Polypedilum illinoense grp 45 11Polypedilum scalaenum grp 5 7Procladius 17 1 1Rheocricotopus 2Rheotanytarsus 2 2Simulium 8Stenochironomus 1Stictochironomus 1Tabanus 1Tanypus 1Tanytarsus 5 29 9Thienemanniella 4

Fishing River #2 (continued): Spring 2003Thienemannimyia grp. 1 57 29Caenis latipennis 1Stenacron 2 2 8Microvelia 1Trichocorixa 126 1Noctuidae 1Physella 2 10 3Argia 7 62 2Basiaeschna janata -99Glossiphoniidae 1Cheumatopsyche 10Hydropsyche 1 5Nectopsyche 4Oecetis 1Aulodrilus 2Branchiura sowerbyi 6Enchytraeidae 1Limnodrilus cervix 7Limnodrilus claparedianus 2Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 9 1Tubificidae 22 1 3Sphaeriidae 2NF = Non-flow HabitatRM = Rootmat HabitatSG = Snag (i.e., Large Woody Debris Habitat)-99 = Present in Samples

Fishing River #3: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGBranchiobdellida 1Acarina 1Hyalella azteca 6Erpobdellidae 1Berosus 1Dubiraphia 4 15 4Hydroporus 1 2Peltodytes 1Ablabesmyia 2 2Ceratopogoninae 11 1 1Chaoborus 1 1Chironomus 9 1Cladotanytarsus 1Corynoneura 2Cricotopus/Orthocladius 2 3 4Cryptochironomus 28 3Cryptotendipes 1Dicrotendipes 66 221Forcipomyiinae 1Glyptotendipes 6 13Hydrobaenus 2 4 3Nanocladius 1Paralauterborniella 1Paraphaenocladius 1 1Paratanytarsus 2 2Phaenopsectra 2 2Polypedilum halterale grp 1Polypedilum illinoense grp 7 6Polypedilum scalaenum grp 1 3Procladius 9 2 4Stenochironomus 1Tanytarsus 2 6Thienemannimyia grp. 1 47 47Caenis latipennis 1 1Ranatra fusca 1Ranatra nigra 1Trichocorixa 166 2 2Fossaria 4 -99Physella 3 66 2Argia 1 5 8Enallagma 1 17Ischnura 1Nasiaeschna pentacantha 2Hydropsyche 1

Fishing River #3 (continued): Spring 2003Oecetis 2Planariidae 11Aulodrilus 3Branchiura sowerbyi 2 2Enchytraeidae 1Limnodrilus cervix 10 1Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 6 5Tubificidae 21 13 1Sphaeriidae 6 5


Fishing River #4: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 1 1Hyalella azteca 2 13Berosus 1Dubiraphia 6 7 1Oreodytes 2Scirtes 7Stenelmis 2Ablabesmyia 4 4Ceratopogoninae 3 1Chironomus 8Cladotanytarsus 7 1 2Corynoneura 1Cricotopus bicinctus 1 1Cricotopus/Orthocladius 7 5Cryptochironomus 3 2Cryptotendipes 2Dicrotendipes 11 15 97Diptera 6Glyptotendipes 3 9 98Hydrobaenus 10 10 9Labrundinia 2Limonia 1Nanocladius 1Odontomyia 1Paraphaenocladius 3Paratanytarsus 2 1Polypedilum convictum grp 1Polypedilum fallax grp 1Polypedilum halterale grp 60Polypedilum illinoense grp 157 4Polypedilum scalaenum grp 1Procladius 50 2 2Pseudochironomus 1Stictochironomus 21Tanytarsus 4 2 7Thienemannimyia grp. 2 9Caenis latipennis 67 5 6Hexagenia 1Stenacron 1Belostoma -99Pelocoris -99Trichocorixa 20Ancylidae 1 4Fossaria 3 22

Fishing River #4 (continued): Spring 2003Physella 6 15 3Lumbricidae 1Argia 1 2Enallagma 4 1Macromia -99Oecetis 4Planariidae 1Aulodrilus 3Branchiura sowerbyi 5Ilyodrilus templetoni 2Limnodrilus cervix 3Limnodrilus claparedianus 1Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 2Tubificidae 18 1 2Sphaeriidae 11 3 2


Clear Creek #1a: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGChordodidae 1Acarina 7Hyalella azteca 5Dubiraphia 3 18 2Helichus lithophilus 6Macronychus glabratus 7 2Oreodytes 11Scirtes 2Stenelmis 1Ablabesmyia 13 1Ceratopogoninae 125 23 18Chironomus 1 1Chrysops 1Cladotanytarsus 2 16Cricotopus/Orthocladius 10 11 51Cryptochironomus 1 1Cryptotendipes 1 1Dicrotendipes 1 46 37Diplocladius 1 3Diptera 1 1Glyptotendipes 186 38Gonomyia 1Hydrobaenus 5 8 20Labrundinia 1Nanocladius 1Nilothauma 3 1Ormosia 1Parachironomus 1Paralauterborniella 1 1 3Paraphaenocladius 2 1Paratanytarsus 5Paratendipes 2Phaenopsectra 2Pilaria 1Polypedilum fallax grp 1Polypedilum halterale grp 23 1 13Polypedilum illinoense grp 1Polypedilum scalaenum grp 5 4 18Procladius 3 3Stenochironomus 1Stictochironomus 2 1Tabanus 1Tanytarsus 2 13 13Thienemannimyia grp. 27 9

Clear Creek #1a (continued): Spring 2003Tipula -99Caenis latipennis 5 12 10Callibaetis 1Hexagenia limbata 7 2Leptophlebia -99 -99Corixidae 1Neoplea 1Ranatra nigra -99Trichocorixa 3Petrophila 1Ancylidae 1Fossaria 3 4Physella -99 34 10Lumbricidae 1Sialis -99Argia 20 1Enallagma 5Gomphus 1Nasiaeschna pentacantha 1Plathemis 1Cheumatopsyche 1 -99Nectopsyche 9 2Nyctiophylax -99Aulodrilus 1Branchiura sowerbyi 1Enchytraeidae 1Ilyodrilus templetoni 2Limnodrilus cervix 12Limnodrilus claparedianus 4 1Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 11 2Tubificidae 61 2Pisidium 7Sphaerium 2 10 5


Clear Creek #1b: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 1Hyalella azteca 9 2Dubiraphia 12 19 4Helichus lithophilus 5 4Macronychus glabratus 5Oreodytes 4 -99Stenelmis 1Ablabesmyia 2 5Ceratopogoninae 144 3 28Chironomus 2Cladotanytarsus 4 12Cricotopus/Orthocladius 2 1 73Cryptochironomus 2Cryptotendipes 8 1 2Dicrotendipes 2 16 19Diplocladius 1Diptera 3 5 1Glyptotendipes 66 30Hydrobaenus 4 14Labrundinia 1Paralauterborniella 4 3Paratanytarsus 7Pilaria 1Polypedilum fallax grp 3Polypedilum halterale grp 27 12Polypedilum illinoense grp 3Polypedilum scalaenum grp 13 1 9Procladius 5Rheotanytarsus 1Stenochironomus 2Stictochironomus 2Tanytarsus 3 37 14Thienemannimyia grp. 29 15Tribelos 1Caenis latipennis 9 18 11Hexagenia limbata 2 1 -99Leptophlebia 1Corixidae 1Fossaria 1 8Physella -99 9Sialis -99Argia 34Enallagma 5Gomphus -99

Clear Creek #1b (continued): Spring 2003Macromia -99Chloroperlidae 2Cheumatopsyche 1Oecetis 2Triaenodes 14Aulodrilus 2Enchytraeidae 1Ilyodrilus templetoni 6 1Limnodrilus cervix 11 1Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 16Tubificidae 33 5 3Pisidium 1Sphaeriidae -99 2 7


Clear Creek #3: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 2Crangonyx 1Agabus 1 1Coleoptera 1Dubiraphia 2 8Helichus lithophilus 2Hydroporus 2 2Oreodytes 1Scirtes 1 1Tropisternus 1Ablabesmyia 1 1Ceratopogoninae 23 1 12Chironomus 5Cladotanytarsus 6 11Cricotopus/Orthocladius 2 1 27Dasyheleinae 1Dicrotendipes 3 12Diptera 23 1Glyptotendipes 5Gonomyia 1Hydrobaenus 23 3 121Ormosia 1Parakiefferiella 1Paraphaenocladius 2 3Paratanytarsus 1 11Paratendipes 1Pericoma 1 2Polypedilum halterale grp 11 3Polypedilum illinoense grp 1Stictochironomus 34Tanytarsus 3 2 4Caenis latipennis 21 173 7Microvelia 7Trichocorixa 2 2 2Ferrissia 3 53Fossaria 47 9 29Laevapex 1 1 2Physella 15 15 15Dromogomphus -99Epitheca (Epicordulia) 1Pachydiplax longipennis -99Glossiphoniidae -99Oecetis 1Triaenodes 2

Clear Creek #3: Spring 2003Aulodrilus 1 5Enchytraeidae 6 4Limnodrilus claparedianus 4Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 11 1Tubificidae 17 8 1Pisidium 1 2Sphaeriidae 19 1 4


Muddy Fork #1: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 2 3Hyalella azteca 2 3Dubiraphia 20 53 1Helichus lithophilus 8 1Macronychus glabratus 1 2Oreodytes 6 22 2Peltodytes 1Scirtes 1Ablabesmyia 10 9 4Ceratopogoninae 15 1 7Chironomus 8 1Cladotanytarsus 3 3 4Cricotopus/Orthocladius 2 2 15Cryptochironomus 1Cryptotendipes 6 2Dasyheleinae 3Dicrotendipes 14 11 65Diptera 5Glyptotendipes 2 9Hydrobaenus 5 3 5Labrundinia 1 3 3Nanocladius 1 3Nilothauma 1 1Parakiefferiella 1 2Paraphaenocladius 4Paratanytarsus 13 2Phaenopsectra 1 3Polypedilum convictum grp 1Polypedilum halterale grp 8 1 4Polypedilum illinoense grp 2 35 6Polypedilum scalaenum grp 4Procladius 12 4 1Pseudochironomus 1 5Stictochironomus 9 1Tabanus 1 2Tanypus 6 2Tanytarsus 30 24 27Thienemannimyia grp. 3 2Tipula 1Zavrelimyia 2Caenis latipennis 62 21 15Hexagenia limbata 11 -99 1Leptophlebia -99Stenacron 2

Muddy Fork #1 (continued): Spring 2003Stenonema femoratum 1Gerris 1Microvelia 2Ancylidae 1 3 1Fossaria 7 25Helisoma -99Physella 10 21Lumbricidae 1Argia 5 1Enallagma 1 1 1Gomphus -99Macromia -99Progomphus obscurus -99Nyctiophylax 2Oecetis 2 2 3Triaenodes 1Aulodrilus 3Branchiura sowerbyi 1Limnodrilus claparedianus 2Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 7 3Tubificidae 15 6Unionidae -99Sphaeriidae 9 4 3


Muddy Fork #2: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 17 1Hyalella azteca 1 12Berosus 1Dubiraphia 3 8 3Helichus lithophilus 1Hydroporus 1Oreodytes 17 5Peltodytes 1Scirtes 3Stenelmis 4Ablabesmyia 3 13Ceratopogoninae 69 6Chironomus 13Cladotanytarsus 2 8Cricotopus/Orthocladius 19 2 3Cryptochironomus 4Cryptotendipes 5Dicrotendipes 12 3 46Glyptotendipes 8 5 29Gonomyia 6 1 1Hydrobaenus 12 3 12Natarsia 1Nilothauma 1Parakiefferiella 1 2Paraphaenocladius 2 2Paratanytarsus 1Polypedilum halterale grp 12 1Polypedilum illinoense grp 1 4 11Polypedilum scalaenum grp 3Procladius 16 1 1Pseudochironomus 11Stictochironomus 3Tabanus 2 1Tanytarsus 4 12Thienemannimyia grp. 1Zavrelimyia 1Caenis latipennis 17 28Stenonema femoratum 1Pyralidae 1Ancylidae 6 1 1Fossaria 10 4 18Physella 5 2 6Argia 1Hydroptila 2

Muddy Fork #2 (continued): Spring 2003Oecetis 2Oxyethira 1Enchytraeidae 2Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 1 5Tubificidae 6Sphaeriidae 4 1 6


Carroll Creek #1: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 6Hyalella azteca 2 8Berosus 8Dubiraphia 5 1 2Gyrinus 2Helichus lithophilus 1Scirtes 1 1Stenelmis 3Ablabesmyia 3Ceratopogoninae 26 9Chironomus 10Cladotanytarsus 1 6Clinotanypus 1Cricotopus/Orthocladius 7 5 12Cryptochironomus 6Cryptotendipes 8Dasyheleinae 1Dicrotendipes 9 9 64Diptera 6 1 1Glyptotendipes 11 5 27Gonomyia 5Hydrobaenus 15 6 19Nilothauma 1Paraphaenocladius 1 2 1Polypedilum halterale grp 5 3Polypedilum illinoense grp 1Polypedilum scalaenum grp 3 3Procladius 22 4 3Stenochironomus 9Stictochironomus 17 1 4Tabanus 2 1 2Tanypus 1Tanytarsus 10 13Tipula 1 1Zavrelimyia 1Caenis latipennis 14 4 25Hexagenia limbata 9 1Microvelia 3Trichocorixa 1 1Caecidotea 4Pyralidae 1Fossaria 1 44Physella 3 9Lumbricidae 2

Carroll Creek #1 (continued): Spring 2003Calopterygidae 1Libellula 1Progomphus obscurus 1Chloroperlidae 1 1Ironoquia 1Aulodrilus 1Branchiura sowerbyi 3 1Enchytraeidae 2 1Limnodrilus cervix 11Limnodrilus claparedianus 3 1Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 7 1 1Tubificidae 45 2 4Unionidae 3Pisidium 1 1Sphaeriidae 1 1 27


Carroll Creek #2: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 1 11 2Crangonyx 3Hyalella azteca 3 4Erpobdellidae -99Agabus 1Berosus 5 4Desmopachria 1Dubiraphia 1 7Hydroporus 1Scirtes 17Tropisternus -99 -99Ablabesmyia 1Ceratopogoninae 14 1Chironomus 7 1Cricotopus/Orthocladius 8 11Cryptotendipes 2Dicrotendipes 3 5 36Diptera 1 2Glyptotendipes 5 28 124Hydrobaenus 68 59 3Microchironomus 2Odontomyia 1Paratanytarsus 1Pilaria 1Polypedilum halterale grp 16Procladius 15Tanytarsus 3 3Caenis latipennis 2 11 1Stenacron 1Microvelia 12Trichocorixa 1 5Ferrissia 2 1Fossaria 22 17 57Gyraulus 2 14 3Helisoma -99 -99 1Physella 9 37 7Dromogomphus -99Enallagma 1Ischnura 1Libellula -99Nasiaeschna pentacantha 1Allocapnia 4Helicopsyche 2Ironoquia 1

Carroll Creek #2 (continued): Spring 2003Aulodrilus 1Branchiura sowerbyi 14Enchytraeidae 10Limnodrilus claparedianus 1Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 11 2Tubificidae 57 10Pisidium 6 3Sphaeriidae 39 25 2


Williams Creek #1: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 2Hyalella azteca 1Erpobdellidae -99 1Dubiraphia 16 30 13Helichus lithophilus 1Peltodytes 2Scirtes 1Stenelmis 1Palaemonetes kadiakensis 3 -99Ablabesmyia 1 2Ceratopogoninae 24 4 8Chironomus 12 10Clinotanypus 1Cricotopus/Orthocladius 2 13 8Cryptochironomus 1Cryptotendipes 3Dicrotendipes 3 27 74Glyptotendipes 2 20 41Hydrobaenus 9 16 10Labrundinia 1Larsia 1Paralauterborniella 7 1 4Paraphaenocladius 1 1Paratanytarsus 14 4Phaenopsectra 10 2Polypedilum fallax grp 2 8Polypedilum halterale grp 7 2 2Polypedilum illinoense grp 8 2Polypedilum scalaenum grp 1Procladius 23 4 6Rheocricotopus 1Stenochironomus 4Tanypus 2Tanytarsus 1 1Thienemannimyia grp. 1 9 8Zavrelimyia 1Caenis latipennis 2 6Stenacron 2 4Corixidae 3Trichocorixa 3Ancylidae 1 1 1Fossaria 8 4Helisoma 1Physella 3 119 40

Williams Creek #1 (continued): Spring 2003Sialis -99 1Argia 4Calopteryx 2Enallagma 3Gomphus -99 1Nasiaeschna pentacantha -99Oecetis 2Branchiura sowerbyi 10 4Enchytraeidae 1 3Ilyodrilus templetoni 12Limnodrilus cervix 7 1Limnodrilus claparedianus 3Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 1 8 5Tubificidae 27 7 4Unionidae -99Pisidium 3 6Sphaeriidae 51 16 4Sphaerium 2 2 1

Williams Creek #2: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 1 3Crangonyx 1Hyalella azteca 1 1Dubiraphia 1 27 3Helichus lithophilus 2Hydroporus 3 12Scirtes 5Ablabesmyia 1Ceratopogoninae 12Chironomus 6Cladotanytarsus 2 1Cricotopus/Orthocladius 8 8 13Dicrotendipes 51 27 120Diptera 4 1Eukiefferiella 1 1Glyptotendipes 2 1 20Hydrobaenus 22 6 25Microtendipes 1Parakiefferiella 1Paralauterborniella 1Paraphaenocladius 1Paratanytarsus 4 8 1Phaenopsectra 5 6Polypedilum fallax grp 4Polypedilum illinoense grp 1 1Polypedilum scalaenum grp 1Procladius 2Pseudochironomus 1Stenochironomus 3Stictochironomus 3 1Tanytarsus 23 6 11Thienemannimyia grp. 1 1 3Caenis latipennis 45 5 27Stenonema femoratum 1Microvelia 3Ancylidae 6 11Fossaria 13 41 26Physella 6 7Chauliodes pectinicornis -99Calopteryx 1Nasiaeschna pentacantha 2Allocapnia 2Oecetis 1 2Planariidae 1

Williams Creek #2 (continued): Spring 2003Branchiura sowerbyi 8 2Enchytraeidae 1Ilyodrilus templetoni 5Limnodrilus claparedianus 2Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 2 6Tubificidae 24 17Pisidium 1 2Sphaeriidae 3 2 2Sphaerium 2 -99


East Fork Fishing River #1: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 1 3Erpobdellidae -99 -99Agabus 1Dineutus 1Dubiraphia 6 6 5Gyrinus 1Helichus -99Helichus lithophilus 5Hydrochus 2Hydroporus 1Oreodytes 2Peltodytes 1Scirtes 1Palaemonetes kadiakensis 2Ceratopogoninae 8 3Chaoborus 2Chironomus 8 2Clinotanypus 4Cricotopus/Orthocladius 5 22 31Dicrotendipes 10 22 50Diptera 1Glyptotendipes 9 64 93Hydrobaenus 4 2 16Paraphaenocladius 1Paratanytarsus 4 4 2Phaenopsectra 1Pilaria 2Polypedilum fallax grp 1Polypedilum halterale grp 8Polypedilum illinoense grp 2Polypedilum scalaenum grp 1Procladius 38 8 12Tanypus 3Tanytarsus 1Thienemannimyia grp. 16 27Caenis latipennis 2 4 2Leptophlebia 1Corixidae 2Microvelia 1Caecidotea 6Ancylidae 3 2 5Fossaria 1 8 6Menetus 2 1Physella 5 20 7

East Fork Fishing River #1 (continued): Spring 2003Sialis -99Argia 1Basiaeschna janata 3Enallagma 1Glossiphoniidae -99Aulodrilus 69Branchiura sowerbyi 1 1Enchytraeidae 2Limnodrilus cervix 3 1Limnodrilus claparedianus 1Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 3 5Quistradrilus multisetosus 44 17 3Tubificidae 62 23 1Corbicula 3 1 1Sphaeriidae 16 6 13


East Fork Fishing River #2: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 7 19 19Hyalella azteca -99 45 29Erpobdellidae -99Dubiraphia 5 10 2Oreodytes 6 9 6Stenelmis 3 29Orconectes virilis -99Ablabesmyia 2 2Ceratopogoninae 120 1 3Chironomus 8 4 25Clinotanypus 1 1Corynoneura 1 4Cricotopus/Orthocladius 5 5 4Cryptotendipes 2 1Dasyheleinae 2Dicrotendipes 5 10 19Glyptotendipes 2 7Hydrobaenus 4 7 5Labrundinia 1Microtendipes 1 1Natarsia 2 1Nilothauma 2Parakiefferiella 7Paraphaenocladius 1Paratanytarsus 1 1Paratendipes 4Phaenopsectra 1 3Polypedilum convictum grp 1Polypedilum illinoense grp 1 3 5Polypedilum scalaenum grp 3 1Procladius 3 3Pseudochironomus 1Stictochironomus 10Tanypus 16 1Tanytarsus 4 8 5Thienemanniella 1Thienemannimyia grp. 3 10 1Zavrelimyia 1 1Caenis latipennis 8 19 13Centroptilum 1Hexagenia 1Stenonema femoratum 1 2Microvelia 1 4Ancylidae 2

East Fork Fishing River #2 (continued): Spring 2003Fossaria 2 5 4Menetus 6 8 10Physella 7 7Lumbricidae 2Basiaeschna janata 1Calopteryx 2Enallagma 5Erythemis 1Gomphus -99Libellula 1Macromia 1Helicopsyche 2Ironoquia 1Nyctiophylax 1Oecetis 1 2 1Planariidae 1 1Branchiura sowerbyi 4 5Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 3 1 20Tubificidae 16 11 39Sphaeriidae 16 8 4


Holmes Creek #1: Spring 2003Taxa NF RM SGAcarina 1Hyalella azteca 5Dubiraphia 3 16 8Enochrus 1Helichus lithophilus 2 1Hydroporus 1Oreodytes 1 3 1Scirtes 7 11Stenelmis 1Ablabesmyia 1 3 7Allognosta 1Ceratopogoninae 8 12Chironomus 1 1 1Cladotanytarsus 2 1 2Corynoneura 1Cricotopus/Orthocladius 9 27 9Cryptochironomus 1 4Dicrotendipes 6 39 55Diptera 5 1Endochironomus 1Glyptotendipes 11 13Hydrobaenus 20 22 11Kiefferulus 3Labrundinia 1Microtendipes 1Nanocladius 1Paralauterborniella 5 3Paraphaenocladius 1 1Paratanytarsus 9 82 15Paratendipes 1 1Phaenopsectra 2 4 16Polypedilum convictum grp 2 1Polypedilum fallax grp 4Polypedilum halterale grp 3Polypedilum illinoense grp 2 27 7Procladius 8 2 1Tabanus -99Tanypus 1Tanytarsus 26 10 21Thienemannimyia grp. 1 7 10Caenis latipennis 7 6 14Heptageniidae 1Hexagenia limbata 2Stenacron 2

Holmes Creek #1 (continued): Spring 2003Trichocorixa 3 2Ancylidae 1 -99Fossaria 3Physella 5 1 3Lumbricidae 7Argia 3 5 2Enallagma 2 3Hetaerina 1 1Nasiaeschna pentacantha -99 1Cheumatopsyche 1Aulodrilus 6Branchiura sowerbyi 1Enchytraeidae 2 2Limnodrilus cervix 7 1Limnodrilus claparedianus 8Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 12 3Tubificidae 75 15Pisidium 1Sphaeriidae 1 2


Documents

Fishing River Final Report - DNR · River relative to sections upstream that are isolated from tributaries that serve as receiving systems for permitted point-source facilities; 2)